a critique of hofstede fifth national culture dimension ijccm 2003

8/3/2019 A Critique of Hofstede Fifth National Culture Dimension IJCCM 2003

1/23

http://ccm.sagepub.comCross Cultural Management

International Journal of

DOI: 10.1177/14705958030030030062003; 3; 347International Journal of Cross Cultural Management

Tony FangA Critique of Hofstedes Fifth National Culture Dimension

http://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/3/3/347The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:International Journal of Cross Cultural ManagementAdditional services and information for

http://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ccm.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/3/3/347#BIBLSAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 37 articles hosted on theCitations

2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.at Stockholms Universitet on April 9, 2007http://ccm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ccm.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ccm.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ccm.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/3/3/347#BIBLhttp://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/3/3/347#BIBLhttp://ccm.sagepub.com/http://ccm.sagepub.com/http://ccm.sagepub.com/http://ccm.sagepub.com/http://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/3/3/347#BIBLhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://ccm.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ccm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


2/23

Geert Hofstedes (1980) Cultures Consequences,

one of the most cited sources in the Social

Science Citation Index, is the most influential

work to date in the study of cross cultural

management. The hallmark of this work is

Hofstedes four dimensions of national cultur-

al variability, i.e. power distance, uncertainty

avoidance, individualism, and masculinity,derived from his unique and extensive

empirical investigations at IBM subsidiaries

in 53 countries.1 Hofstede defines culture as

the collective mental programming of the

mind which distinguishes one group or cate-

gory of people from another. Hofstede

(1983b: 78) maintains that his cultural dimen-

sions broadly characterize national culture in

terms of its average pattern of beliefs and

values.

In 1991, Hofstede published Cultures and

Organizations, a revised and popularized ver-

sion ofCultures Consequences. He explained the

impetus behind the new book as follows

(1991: ix):

Reformulating the message of CulturesConsequencesafter 10 years has made it possibleto include the results of more recent researchby others and by myself . . . Since 1980 manypeople have published important studies oncultural differences. The second half of thebook is almost entirely based on new material.

Commentaries and Critical Articles

A Critique of Hofstedes FifthNational Culture Dimension

Tony FangStockholm University School of Business, Sweden

Using indigenous knowledge of Chinese culture and philosophy, this article

critiques Geert Hofstedes fifth national culture dimension, i.e. Confucian dynamism, also

referred to as long-term orientation. The basic premise on which the dimension is founded

is scrutinized and the way in which this index has been constructed is assessed in detail. It is

argued that there is a philosophical flaw inherent in this new dimension. Given this fatal

flaw and other methodological weaknesses, the usefulness of Hofstedes fifth dimension is

doubted. The article concludes by calling for new visions and perspectives in our cross

cultural research.

Chinese values Confucian dynamism cross cultural Hofstedes fifth

dimension long-term orientation Yin Yang

Copyright 2003 SAGE Publications

www.sagepublications.com

1470-5958 [200312]3:3;347368;038866

CCM International Journal of

Cross Cultural

Management2003 Vol 3(3): 347

368

http://www.sagepublications.com/http://ccm.sagepub.com/http://ccm.sagepub.com/http://ccm.sagepub.com/http://ccm.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/


3/23

A vital feature of this book is the inclusion

of Confucian dynamism (also known as

long-term orientation LTO) as a fifth

dimension of national culture variance. Awhole chapter (i.e. Chapter 7, pp. 15974) is

devoted to theorizing and describing this

new dimension (see especially the section

Confucian dynamism as a fifth dimension,

Hofstede, 1991: 1646). According to Hof-

stede (1991), the fifth dimension deals with

time orientation and consists of two con-

trasting poles: long-term orientation versus

short-term orientation (see Table 1).

Hofstede expounds this new dimension inmany writings, for example:

We have called this dimension ConfucianDynamism to show that it deals with a choicefrom Confucius ideas and that its positive polereflects a dynamic, future-oriented mentality,whereas its negative pole reflects a more static,tradition-oriented mentality. (Hofstede andBond, 1988: 16, emphasis added)

[N]early all values, on both poles, seem to betaken straight from the teachings of Confucius. . .

the values on the one pole are more orientedtowards the future (especially perseveranceand thrift); they are more dynamic. The

values on the opposite pole are more orientedtowards the past and present; they aremore static. (Hofstede, 1991: 166, emphasisadded)

According to Hofstede (1991), long-term

orientation refers to a positive, dynamic, and

future oriented culture linked with four posi-

tive Confucian values: persistence (per-

severance); ordering relationships by status

and observing this order; thrift; and having

a sense of shame. Short-term orientation,

however, represents a negative, static and tra-

ditional and past-oriented culture associatedwith four negative Confucian values: per-

sonal steadiness and stability; protecting

your face; respect for tradition; and

reciprocation of greetings, favors and gifts.

Chinese societies (China, Hong Kong,

Taiwan, Singapore), Japan, Korea, Thailand,

etc., are ranked as more future- and long-

term oriented cultures, whereas Pakistan,

Nigeria, the Philippines, Canada, Zimbabwe,

the UK, the USA, New Zealand, Australiaand Germany are more past and short-term

oriented cultures (see Table 2). Furthermore,

Hofstede uses the index of Confucian

dynamism (long-term orientation) to explain

the economic growth of nations. Carroll and

Gannon (1997: 73) sum up: they [Hofstede

and his associates] distinguished between the

so-calledgoodand badaspects of Confucian-

ism, and it was only the good aspects of

Confucianism making up the Confucian ethic

that were related to economic growth in

Asian nations (emphasis added).

During the process of preparing this

article, Hofstede (2001) published the new

edition ofCultures Consequences. However, the

fundamental premise that underpins the fifth

dimension remains the same as it was when

originally introduced 10 years ago (see Hof-

stede, 1991). Comparing Hofstede (2001)

with Hofstede (1980), Smith (2002: 119, 130)

comments:

International Journal of Cross Cultural Management3(3)348

Table 1 Long-term orientation (Confucian dynamism) as a fifth dimension

Long-term orientation Short-term orientation

1. Persistence (perseverance) 1. Personal steadiness and stability

2. Ordering relationships by status 2. Protecting your faceand observing this order 3. Respect for tradition

3. Thrift 4. Reciprocation of greetings,

4. Having a sense of shame favors, and gifts

Source: Based on Hofstede (1991: 1656; 2001: 3545)

http://ccm.sagepub.com/http://ccm.sagepub.com/http://ccm.sagepub.com/http://ccm.sagepub.com/


4/23

This book is of course a new edition, not a newstudy. . . . The inclusion of a fifth dimension ofcultural variance in this edition constitutes the

most substantial departure from the perspec-tive advanced in the first edition. However, itcomes as no surprise to readers of Hofstedes(1991) reprise of his earlier perspective, and isan expanded version of the relevant chapter inthat book.

In Sndergaards (2001) recent review of

Hofstede (2001), Hofstedes dimensional

model of cultural variation is not discussed at

all. However, a close scrutiny of the contents

and structure of Hofstede (2001) compared

to Hofstede (1991) reveals that Hofstede has

indeed made several adjustments. For exam-

ple, he no longer uses the terms Confucian

dynamism and long-term orientation inter-

changeably to refer to the fifth dimension as

he did earlier (Hofstede, 1991) but rather

terms it solely long-term orientation (see the

section Long-term orientation as a fifth

dimension, Hofstede, 2001: 3535, as

opposed to the section Confucian dynamism

as a fifth dimension, Hofstede, 1991: 1646).

Furthermore, instead of clearly describing

the fifth dimension as being made up of two

opposing poles of Chinese (Confucian) values

as he did earlier (Hofstede, 1991), Hofstede

Fang: Hofstedes Fifth National Culture Dimension 349

Table 2 Long-term orientation (LTO) index and factor scores from 23 countries and regions

Score rank Country or region Factor scores LTO score

1 China* 118

2 Hong Kong .91 963 Taiwan .74 87

4 Japan .59 80

5 South Korea .49 75

6 Brazil .30 65

7 India .21 61

8 Thailand .11 56

9 Singapore .04 48

10 Netherlands .13 44

11 Bangladesh .20 40

12 Sweden

.34 3313 Poland .36 32

14 Germany FR .38 31

15 Australia .38 31

16 New Zealand .39 30

17 USA .42 29

18 Great Britain .50 25

19 Zimbabwe .50 25

20 Canada .53 23

21 Philippines .61 19

22 Nigeria .67 16

23 Pakistan 1.00 00

* China was not included in the original empirical study of 22 countries conducted by The Chinese Culture

Connection (1987). China was later included in Hofstede (1991).

Sources: Factor scores from The Chinese Culture Connection (1987: 153); LTO scores from Hofstede (1991: 166).



5/23

now provides a list of the key implications

and essence concerning long-term vs. short-

term orientation when it comes to differences

in family, social relations and work, in ways

of thinking, and in societal norms between

short- and long-term-orientation societies

(see Exhibit 7.6 and Exhibit 7.7, Hofstede,

2001: 3667). Such treatment makes the fifth

dimension even more difficult to understand.

The list offers mere speculations and after-

event corroboration and assertion rather

than well-thought-out points embedded in

the original database and conceptualization.

This methodological flaw is also pointed out

in other scholars critiques of Hofstedes first

four dimensions (e.g. Tayeb, 1994, 2000),which Hofstede himself admits (Hofstede et

al., 1990: 287 in Tayeb, 2000). Given the

purpose and focus of this article and the fact

that the very basis of the notion of long-term

orientation (LTO) originates from Hofstede

(1991), I choose to refer mostly to Hofstede

(1991) as the main source of reference where

LTO is concerned. Also given this reason,

the terms Confucian dynamism and long-

term orientation are used interchangeably inthis article, the same way as they are termed

and treated in Hofstede (1991).

The Fifth Dimension and the

Research Community

Hofstedes first four dimensions have gener-

ated enormous numbers of replications, cita-

tions and discussions (Smith, 1996; Snder-

gaard, 1994; Triandis, 1982); they have also

attracted criticism (Lowe, 2001; McSweeney,

2002a, b; Roberts and Boyacigiller, 1984;

Tayeb, 1988, 1994, 2000, 2001; Yeh and

Lawrence, 1995) and in some cases further

refinements (Schwartz, 1992). In contrast, the

fifth dimension does not seem to have been

received enthusiastically by the cross cultural

research community since it was launched in

1991. Few studies (e.g. Ralston et al., 1992,

1993; Read, 1993) have adopted the fifth

dimension as a research instrument. These

works, however, share the feature of starting

by unquestioningly accepting the notion of

Confucian dynamism as a major theoretical

platform. Such an approach to cross cultural

research is believed to be problematic. In the

words of Jackson and Aycan (2001: 7):

Instead, cross cultural research starts with adeep questioning of whether or not the keyconcepts and measurement tools are relevantand appropriate in different cultural contexts.If not, researchers must develop comparableconstructs and tools to capture both the emicas well as the pan-cultural/etic aspects of themanagement phenomenon.

Researchers in cross cultural communica-

tion who refer extensively to Hofstede avoidengaging in discussions about the fifth

dimension (e.g. Gudykunst et al., 1996); a

comprehensive survey of reviews, citations

and replications of Hofstede does not even

include the fifth dimension (Sndergaard,

1994). In Triandiss (1993) review of Hof-

stedes (1991) Cultures and Organizations, the

fifth dimension is not mentioned at all.

Punnett (1999: 60) writes in her overview of

cross cultural research: The Hofstede (1980)model proposed four dimensions of culture (a

fifth dimension was added based on research

in the Far East Chinese Culture Con-

nection, 1987 but is not discussed here).

Problems are reported by researchers who

attempt to operationalize the fifth dimension

in analysis. Newman and Nollen (1996: 776)

write: long-term orientation is the most

difficult because it is the newest of the dimen-

sions and the least familiar to Western

researchers. Redpath and Nielsen (1997:

329) comment: this dimension is probably

the least relevant to our analysis. It was the

most difficult to apply, because distinctions

between the two ends of the spectrum are

unclear and often seem contradictory. Kal

(1996: 22) remarks: Since this book [Hof-

stede, 1980] was published, Hofstede has

added a fifth dimension, however, concep-

tual and empirical support for this dimension

is not very exhaustive (Hofstede 1991). Yeh




6/23

and Lawrence (1995) find that Hofstedes

two cultural dimensions, individualism and

Confucian dynamism (long-term orienta-

tion), appear to be highly interrelated; there-

fore the robustness of his conceptualization

of these two dimensions in the same research

scheme is questioned.

These critical comments are valuable

because there has been a dearth of debate

about Hofstedes fifth dimension in the litera-

ture. Suggestions that Hofstedes theories

may not hold water are usually dismissed as

wishful, pretentious, nave and shortsighted.

But the lack of debate has resulted in stagna-

tion and confusion from which the field of

cross cultural management has evidentlysuffered. Various textbooks and writings have

introduced and interpreted Hofstedes fifth

dimension in a way that is different from what

even Hofstede (1991) himself implied. For

example, contrary to what Confucian dyna-

mism suggests (i.e. British and Americans are

short-term-oriented, whereas Chinese and

Japanese are future-oriented), Rollinson et al.

(1998) explain that the fifth dimension means

that the British and Americans are long-termfuture-oriented, whereas Chinese and Japan-

ese are short-term past-oriented. Earley

(1997: 87) also interprets Confucian dynam-

ism as referring

to a time and causal orientation. People fromone extreme of Confucian dynamism focus onlinearity of time and place an emphasis on thefuture, such as the British and Americans.Other people emphasize a connection to thepast and place an emphasis on reciprocal

causation of events, such as the Chinese andJapanese.

Uncertainty pervades the research com-

munity as to how many national culture

dimensions make up Hofstedes theory. In

one of his most recent texts, Hofstede (2002:

1356) talks about four or five dimensions.

The research communitys lack of enthu-

siasm for Hofstedes fifth dimension and the

feeling of strangeness, uncertainty and confu-

sion are not surprising. As will be discussed in

detail in this article, they reflect deep-seated

flaws in the concept itself. Most existing

critiques of Hofstedes fifth dimension, how-

ever, do not touch the foundation of the con-

cept by analyzing the core constructs, i.e. the

eight Chinese values that underlie the dimen-

sion. This is where the present article differs;

its purpose is to assess the concept of Con-

fucian dynamism (long-term orientation) by

using indigenous knowledge of Chinese cul-

ture and philosophy. The focus of the article

is to scrutinize the basic premise on which

the fifth dimension is founded and the way in

which this index has been constructed. To

achieve this purpose, we need to answer

these questions: what is Confucian dyna-mism (long-term orientation) and how was it

produced?; how robust is the concept for

cross cultural management? The article is not

intended to be prescriptive; as a whole it

should be read as a preliminary discussion of

this rich and complex subject to help stimu-

late debate. As to the methodology, the

article takes an emic approach, i.e. using

an insiders knowledge of a specific culture

(Chinese in this case) to examine the robust-ness and reliability of the fifth dimension.

Analyzing an allegedly universal national

culture dimension through the prism of

Chinese culture may court accusations of

blending etics with emics. However, an in-

depth look at Hofstedes fifth dimension

requires the Chinese perspective, because the

concept itself is built on Chinese values.

Genesis of the FifthDimension

Although Hofstede and Bond (1984) initially

suggested that Hofstedes original four di-

mensions might not be the only universal

dimensions of cultural variation, the notion

that Confucian (work) dynamism could be a

meaningful national culture dimension was

first suggested by the Chinese Value Survey

(CVS) from the Chinese Culture Connection

(1987). The motivation behind the CVS was




7/23


Table 3 The 40 Chinese values in the Chinese Value Survey

1. Xiao (Fucong fumu, Filial piety (Obedience to parents, respect for parents,

zunjin fumu zunchong honoring of ancestors, financial support of parents)

zuxian, shanyang fumu)

2. Qinlao Industry (Working hard)3. Rongren Tolerance of others

4. Suihe Harmony with others

5. Qianxu Humbleness

6. Zhongyu shangci Loyalty to superiors

7. Liyi Observation of rites and social rituals

8. Li shang wang lai Reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts

9. Renai (Xu, renqing) Kindness (Forgiveness, compassion)

10. Xueshi (Jiaoyu) Knowledge (Education)

11. Tuanjie Solidarity with others

12. Zhongyong zhidao Moderation, following the middle way

13. Xiuyang Self-cultivation14. Zun bei you xu Ordering relationships by status and observing this order

15. Zhengyigan Sense of righteousness

16. En wei bing shi Benevolent authority

17. Bu zhong jingzheng Non-competitiveness

18. Wenzhong Personal steadiness and stability

19. Lianjie Resistance to corruption

20. Ai guo Patriotism

21. Chengken Sincerity

22. Qinggao Keeping oneself disinterested and pure

23. Jian Thrift

24. Naili (Yili) Persistence (Perseverance)

25. Naixin Patience

26 Baoen yu baochou Repayment of both the good or the evil that another person

has caused you

27. Wenhua youyuegan A sense of cultural superiority

28. Shiying huanjing Adaptability

29. Xiaoxin (Shen) Prudence (Carefulness)

30. Xinyong Trustworthiness

31. Zhi chi Having a sense of shame

32. You limao Courtesy

33. An fen shou ji Contentedness with ones position in life

34. Baoshou Being conservative

35. Yao mianzi Protecting your face36. Zhiji zhijiao A close, intimate friend

37. Zhenjie Chastity in women

38. Guayu Having few desires

39. Zunjing chuantong Respect for tradition

40. Caifu Wealth

Note: The original Chinese characters have been replaced with the Chinese pinyin spelling for the convenience of

western readers.

Source: Based on The Chinese Culture Connection (1987: 1478).*



8/23

the Chinese Culture Connections (1987:

144) concern with the cultural neutrality of

Hofstedes four dimensions: they may them-

selves be culture bound. Therefore, in order

to generate sufficiently robust and culture-

free dimensions, Eastern-biased research

instruments ought to be introduced. Given

the pervasive and long-standing influence of

the Chinese culture on surrounding cultures

in East Asia, a Chinese value survey would

serve the aim of counter-balancing the west-

ern biases. Michael H. Bond and seven over-

seas Chinese scholars prepared a list of

fundamental and basic values for Chinese

people in which 40 traditional Chinese

values are included (see Table 3).

Fifty male and 50 female college students

in each of the 22 countries (see Table 1;

Mainland China was not included) were

asked to indicate on a 9-point scale how

important each of the values was to them

personally. Through factor analysis based on

the students ratings, the 40 Chinese values

were further boiled down to four value

groupings or dimensions: integration (CVS

I), Confucian work dynamism (CVS II),

human-heartedness (CVS III), and moral

discipline (CVS IV), as shown in Table 4.

The 22 countries in the Chinese Value

Survey were then placed along each of the

four Chinese dimensions. The factor scores

on Confucian work dynamism can be found

in Table 1. Since 20 of the 22 countries in the

CVS overlapped with those in Hofstedes

(1983a) study, the country scores on each of

the four Chinese dimensions could be corre-

lation-tested with scores on Hofstedes four

dimensions in the IBM studies. Hofstedes

power distance (PD) and individualism (IDV)

were found to correlate significantly with

integration (CVS I) and moral discipline

(CVS IV), respectively, and Hofstedes


Table 4 Value loading > .55 on the factor analysis of standardized CVS country means

CVS I (Integration) CVS II (Confucian work dynamism)

Tolerance of others (.86) Ordering relationships (.64)

Harmony with others (.86) Thrift (.63)Solidarity with others (.61) Persistence (.76)

Non-competitiveness (.85) Having a sense of shame (.61)

Trustworthiness (.69) Reciprocation (.58)

Contentedness (.65) Personal steadiness (.76)

Being conservative (.56) Protecting your face (.72)

A close, intimate friend (.75) Respect for tradition (.62)

Filial piety (.74)

Patriotism (.62)

Chastity in women (.70)

CV III (Human-heartedness) CV IV (Moral discipline)

Kindness (.72) Moderation (.65)

Patience (.88) Keeping oneself disinterested and pure (.56)

Courtesy (.76) Having few desires (.67)

Sense of righteousness (.57) Adaptability (.71)

Patriotism (.62) Prudence (.58)

Source: The Chinese Culture Connection (1987: 150)



9/23

masculinity (MAS) correlated significantly

with human-heartedness (CVS III). How-

ever, uncertainty avoidance (UAI) does not

correlate with any of the CVS dimensions.

Moreover, Confucian work dynamism (CVS

II) does not correlate with any of the Hof-

stede dimensions, but does correlate signifi-

cantly with the countries average gross

national growth (GNG) across the 20-year

span of 196584. The Chinese Culture Con-

nection (1987: 155, 158) wrote:

This latter result is extremely important in thelight of recent speculation on the Post-Confucian Hypothesis, the conjecture thatfundamental aspects of Confucian social philo-

sophy are responsible for the stunning eco-nomic development of Oriental cultures with aChinese heritage.

Confucian dynamism, a concept un-

known to the West, eventually emerged as an

Oriental contribution to Hofstedes dimen-

sions of national culture. In their joint article

The Confucius Connection: From Cultural

Roots to Economic Growth, Hofstede and

Bond (1988: 16) wrote:

In fact, both the values on the right and thoseon the left are in line with the teachings ofConfucius as we described them earlier.However, the values on the left select thoseteachings of Confucius that are more orientedtoward the future (especially perseverance andthrift), whereas those on the right selectConfucian values oriented toward the past andthe present. We have called this dimensionConfucian Dynamism.

In Cultures and Organizations, Hofstede

defines Confucian dynamism as his fifth

dimension and also interchangeably refers to

it as long-term versus short-term orienta-

tion. The scores from China are then (Hof-

stede, 1991) added to the previous list of 22

countries, with the number of sample coun-

tries reaching 23 (see Table 1). It may seem

unfair to ascribe Confucian dynamism (long-

term orientation) to Geert Hofstede alone. As

we have found in the foregoing discussions,

the prototype of Confucian dynamism and

LTO was initially constructed by the Chinese

Culture Connection (1987) led by Michael

H. Bond (the weaknesses in their design will

be discussed later). However, Hofstede (1991)

makes a great leap forward in his interpreta-

tion of the concept by transforming it into a

national culture dimension of long-term

versus short-term orientation, which does

not feature the original work of the Chinese

Culture Connection (1987).2

A Confusing Dimension

Hofstedes fifth dimension, as noted earlier,

has not been well received. One reason may

be that the Confucian values underlying the

concept look so Chinese that they appeardisconcertingly strange to many western

readers. Hofstede frequently notes that the

fifth dimension is an Oriental contribution to

his dimensional theory of culture that is not

registered in the western mind (see, e.g.

Hofstede, 1991, 1993; Franke et al., 1991)

and writes (in Hofstede and Bond, 1988:

1718):

If this dimension is somewhat puzzling to the

Western readers, they should not be surprised.The dimension is composed precisely of thoseelements that our Western instruments had notregistered; a Westerner would not normallyfind them important.

However, the fifth dimension seems to be

confusing to the Chinese mind too. Dimen-

sions of national culture, like low- and

high-context (Hall, 1976), individualism

collectivism (Triandis, 1995; Hofstede, 1980,

1991), power distance (large versus small),

uncertainty avoidance (strong versus weak),

and masculinityfemininity (Hofstede, 1980,

1991) all possess a structural fit3 by offering

two contrasting or opposing alternatives. Hof-

stedes fifth dimension, however, does not

follow this vein. For the Chinese, the values

at the two ends of long-term orientation are

not contrasting or opposing values, but

rather closely interrelated with one another.

For example, the Chinese are certainly long-

term and future-oriented in certain settings




10/23

and situations. But there has been consider-

able research showing that Chinese culture is

past-oriented. Kluckholn and Strodtbeck

(1961: 14) observe that China was a society

which gave first-order value preference to the

Past timeorientation. Ancestor worship and a

strong family tradition were both expressions

of this preference. The past time orientation

is also found to be a core Chinese value by

Chinese scholars on the mainland and over-

seas (Chan, 1998; Fan, 2000; Ouyang, 1995;

Yau, 1988, 1994). An inside look at the

Chinese business psyche reveals that short-

term orientation, such as opportunity-driven

behaviors and heavy reliance on cash trans-

actions to expedite business deals, has been asalient Chinese trait throughout history

(Chen, 2001, 2002). Running after short-

term commercial interests without long-term

vision in business ethics is an overriding

problem of Mainland Chinese business

enterprises (Zhang, 2001).

Take face as another example. This is

among the most important elements in

Chinese social psychology. Although a uni-

versal phenomenon, face is particularlysalient in the Chinese culture (e.g. Hu, 1944;

Lin, 1939; Redding and Ng, 1982). In fact,

the concept of face is Chinese in origin (see

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical

Principles, 1975: 716). According to Hofstedes

country scores on Confucian dynamism

(long-term orientation, see Tables 1 and 2),

compared with China, western countries like

the USA, Great Britain and Canada are more

short-term oriented, being placed toward the

lower end of the LTO scale, suggesting

that these national cultures are more face-

oriented. Anyone with intimate cross cultural

life and work experience will find this confus-

ing and will wonder how westerners, such as

North Americans and the English, could be

more face-caring (protecting your face, a key

value in short-term orientation) than the

Chinese from China, Hong Kong, Taiwan

and Singapore.

A Philosophical Flaw

From the Oriental and Chinese point of

view, Hofstedes fifth dimension, which

divides some Confucian values into the

positive pole and some into the negativepole, suffers from a grave philosophical flaw.

Perhaps the best-known symbol of East Asia

is Yin Yang (Cooper, 1990), the Chinese

philosophical principle of dualism and para-

dox in the manifest world (Figure 1). Yin

(female elements: the moon, water, weak,

dark, soft, passive, etc.) and Yang (male

elements: the sun, fire, strong, bright, hard,

active, etc.) represent qualities inherent in all

the phenomena in the universe. It is a deeplyrooted Chinese belief that Yin and Yang

exist in everything; everything embraces Yin

and Yang. Confucian values are no excep-

tion each Confucian value has its bright

and dark sides and involves constructive and

destructive qualities.

Let us first look at the four allegedly

negative and short-term Chinese values in

Hofstedes fifth dimension (see also Table 1).

In Chinese, these values are: wenzhong (per-

sonal steadiness and stability); yao mianzi(protecting your face); zunjing chuantong

(respect for tradition); and li shang wang lai

(reciprocation of greetings, favors and gifts).

From a linguistic point of view, these Chinese

phrases sound more positive than negative,

or at least neutral. Whether these values are

positive or negative cannot be judged at face

value; it all depends on the specific contexts

and situations in which they are discussed.

However, if the prefixes tai(too much),guofen(excessive), and bu (not, none) are added to

these values, they then tend to, if not always,

become negative.

Wenzhong Personal

Steadiness and Stability

Wenzhong (personal steadiness and stability)

meansprudenceand implies the need for good

planning. When a person is wenzhong in

decision-making, the decision is perceived as




11/23

solid, well-grounded and valuable. In Chin-

ese, wenzhong carries with it certain moral

connotations of deeply cultivated personal

integrity.

Wenzhong is interrelated with the values

on the positive pole of long-term orientation:

a person who is persistent, respects ordered

relationships and thrift, and has a sense of

shame must be a person who is wenzhong incharacter. For example, thrift cannot be

expected of a person who is not wenzhong.

The opposite ofwenzhong bu wenzhong

is very negative in the Confucian culture.

People of bu wenzhong type are not reliable

and trustworthy. However, those who are tai

wenzhongorguofen wenzhongmay not be able to

make a career either; they lack dynamics,

passion, and an entrepreneurial spirit, which

are important qualities for surviving in

todays changeable business environment.

Yao mianzi Protecting your

Face

Hofstede (1991: 169) seems to interpret face

as a negative value when he claims that pro-

tecting ones face if exaggerated would detract

from pursuing the business at hand. But

must a strong face-consciousness always be

negative? No. Ting-Toomeys (1988) study of

the facework literature shows that face can be

both positive and negative. Goffman (1955:

213) defines face as a positive social value

and calls it an effective self-regulating mech-

anism for mobilizing members in any society.

In Chinese society, face as a self-regulat-

ing moral mechanism finds its most telling

exposure. Face, in Chinese, is conceptualized

in terms of two words: lian (lien ) and mianzi

(Hu, 1944). Both convey more or less moralconnotations and are linked to family and

group. The need for face ( yao lian, or yao

mianzi ) is intrinsic to various aspects of per-

sonal and interpersonal relationship develop-

ment in the Chinese culture (Gao, 1996).

Face is an essential element of Chinese

politeness; to be polite is to be face-caring

(Gu, 1990: 241).

Can the Confucian value protecting ones

face inspire people to pursue business and

make a career? Yes. In Chinese culture, faceis not only a persons private affair but also,

more important, concerns the persons whole

family, social networks, and community at

large. Schtte and Ciarlante (1998: 45)

observe that Chinese . . . are particularly

mindful not to lose face for their family but

instead strive to gain face for the family

through the accumulation of wealth, pres-

tige, status, power and so on. Many Chinese

are hardworking and ambitious; a deep psy-


Figure 1 The Yin Yang principle



12/23

chological explanation is face because they

simply do not wish to let China, Chinese

people, or Chinese culture down. This is

illustrated in a story (in Huang et al., 1997:

224), My Daughter Played the National

Anthem of China on the Piano, by Zhang

Xiaoming, about how her 7-year-old daugh-

ter adapted successfully to her new life in

Japan:

The daughter[,] who was a first grade pupil,came to Japan without knowing any Japanese.The parents worried that she could not adaptto changes in the Japanese school system. Thegirl made great achievements after only sixmonths. The girl often said to her parents: If Icannot do a good job, they [her Japanese class-mates] will think that Chinese people areunable to achieve. I must gain a respectfulface for our Chinese people.

Face has also been found to be an important

reason behind the economic growth of East

Asia. As Hofheinz and Calder (1982: 25) put

it:

Face is an old Chinese expression to loseface, or to be shown to be not what societythinks you are, is a fate literally worse than

imprisonment. . . . In many ways, Japansmassive efforts at rapid growth were spurredby the feeling that Japan had to catch upwith its industrialized neighbors to save face,an important element in ensuring nationalsecurity.

Looking back on Chinese history, I would

say that had the Chinese people not had a

deep face-consciousness or keen sense of

shame, China, a country traditionally with

no effective legal and institutional frame-

works, would have become a disunited

nation a long time ago.

In Confucian culture, there is no greater

sin than bu yao mianzi (do not protect face).

This person simply does not have a sense of

shame. If a person is tai yao mianzior guofen

yao mianzi, he or she is difficult to communi-

cate with. Face could, for example, give rise

to the following communication problems: a

Chinese no may not mean a real no, and a

Chinese yes may not be a real yes, either

(Gu, 1990; Tung and Worm, 1997); critical

messages have to be relayed through a third

party (Wierzbicka, 1996); and yilun (gossip,

making remarks behind ones back, see Gao,

et al., 1996). Gao (1996: 95) explains that the

two expressions bu yao lian and bu yao mianzi

both sound very negative in Confucian

culture, the former being more negatively

connoted with ones personal integrity and

moral character.

Chinese thought has been shaped not

only by Confucian values but also many other

philosophies including Sun Tzus strategic

and deceptive thinking. In a business con-

text, the Chinese play and integrate two dia-

metrically different roles: Confucian gentle-man and Sun Tzu-like strategist (Fang,

1999). Chinese businesspeople value face

when doing business as gentlemen, but thick

face and black heart (meaning faceless, Chu,

1992) when doing business as strategists.

In Chinese philosophical parlance, yao

mianzi (protecting your face) and zhi chi

(having a sense of shame) are not distinct

concepts but rather share a common Con-

fucian moral base: face-caring or face-need.It is inappropriate to operationalize having a

sense of shame and protecting your face as

two separate and opposing values as shown

in Hofstedes fifth dimension.

Zunjing chuantong Respect

for Tradition

Zunjing chuantong(respect for tradition) is per-

ceived as a negative Chinese value in Hof-

stedes fifth dimension. In general terms,

however, a tradition does not have to be poor

or negative; it could refer to fine traditions

and involve all the positive values listed in

long-term orientation, i.e. persistence (perse-

verance), ordering relationships by status and

observing this order, thrift, and having a

sense of shame. China is the worlds oldest

civilization, with a 5000-year history. A

reason why the Chinese culture is so endur-

ing is because the Chinese people are proud

of their traditions and profoundly respect




13/23

them. Instead of using the term Con-

fucianism, Professor Wei-Ming Tu (1984,

1990), a world authority on Confucianism,

prefers to call Confucianism Confucian tra-

dition, Confucian philosophy or Con-

fucian thought.

Reddings (1990: 209) following analysis

of Chinese culture allows us to see the causal

relationship between the Chinese respect for

tradition (a negative value in Hofstedes fifth

dimension), willing compliance (observing

this order, a positive value in the fifth dimen-

sion) and perseverance (also a positive value

in the fifth dimension):

One of the outcomes of this vertical coopera-tiveness is willing compliance. This tendency isalso reinforced by early conditioning of peopleduring childhood and education, and therespect for authority figure, deeply ingrainedin the Confucian tradition, tends to be main-tained through life. . . . An extension of thiswillingness to comply is willingness to engagediligently in routine and possibly dull tasks,something one might term perseverance.

The phrases tai zunjing chuantongor guofen

zunjing chuantong suggest a person who is

caught in the same trap as those who are tai

wenzhong or guofen wenzhong, which is thus

negative. In the Confucian culture, the phrase

bu zunjing chuantongcommonly refers to behav-

iors that do not respect traditional Chinese

etiquette and custom, which sounds negative.

Li shang wang lai

Reciprocation of Greetings,

Favors and Gifts

Li shang wang lai is also a negative value in

Hofstedes fifth dimension. Translating the

Chinese concept li as greetings, favors and

gifts is basically correct. However, such an

interpretation does not deliver the philo-

sophical underpinnings that this Chinese

value carries with it. More accurate transla-

tions would be: If you honor me a foot, I will

honor you ten feet in return and Courtesy

demands reciprocity (Fang, 2001), or Deal

with a person as he deals with you and pay

a man back in his own coin (see A Modern

ChineseEnglish Dictionary, 1994: 543).

Li shang wang lai, like all other Chinese

values, is a Chinese way of life; it is impossi-

ble to generalize whether it is good or bad,

positive or negative, long-term oriented or

short-term oriented. It could be very positive,

and long-term oriented. An example that

comes to mind is that of the difference

between what is practiced in China and in

the West in going out to eat with colleagues

and acquaintances. In the West, going

Dutch is common. When the bill comes,

people pass it around, check it, and then each

pays for what he or she ordered. In China,

however, a bill is seldom settled in a restau-rant in this way someone will always pay

for the whole party. Situations where people

argue back and forth and elbow one another

to get to the bill first are not uncommon. The

person who finally picks up the bill will not be

forgotten by the others. They will practice li

shang wang lai to repay this hospitality by

inviting this person to dinner the next time

when another person will settle the bill for

everyone. In this way, the Chinese mutuallycultivate and develop interpersonal relation-

ships, showing concern for one another and

pushing their relationships into the future. A

person who does not observe li shang wang lai

will simply not survive in Chinese society.

However, excessive li shang wang laivulgarizes

ones social networks and can lead to corrup-

tion.

We have now discussed what are called

the short-term oriented, past-oriented and

negative Confucian values in the fifth

dimension. We find that each of these four

Chinese values embraces both Yin and Yang;

they are not necessarily past- and short-term

oriented, or negative; they can be future- and

long-term oriented, or positive, as well. The

same principle applies to the positive

Chinese values in Hofstedes long-term

orientation. We have earlier discussed zhi chi

(having a sense of shame), which shares the

same philosophical base as yao mianzi(pro-




14/23

tecting your face). Now, let us focus on jian

(thrift), zun bei you xu (ordering relationships

by status and observing this order), and naili

(yili) (persistence, perseverance).

Jian Thrift

Thrift (jian ) is a major characteristic of the

Chinese. Hofstede and Bond (1988: 18)

explain this value as follows: The value of

thrift leads to savings, which means avail-

ability of capital for reinvestment, an obvious

asset to economic growth Hofstede (1991:

168). Hofstede also mentions that there is a

striking contrast between the East and the

West in terms of private savingsas a share of

the gross national product; and spending,the opposite to thrift, seems to be a value

in the USA both at individual and govern-

ment level. Clearly, Hofstede interprets

the Chinese saving behavior as long-term

oriented and the American spending behav-

ior as short-term oriented, the former being

positive and the latter negative to economic

growth. Interestingly, in China, for example,

many people tend to think the opposite: west-

erners are far-sighted: they have the guts tospend money, since spending also means, at

least in part, investing in the future. Saving

behavior does not automatically mean that

the person who makes the saving makes a

future-oriented investment.

Zun bei you xu Ordering

Relationships by Status and

Observing this Order

The value of zun bei you xu (ordering

relationships by status and observing this

order) is based on the five cardinal relation-

ships (wulun ) of Confucianism: relationships

between ruler and subject, father and son,

husband and wife, elder brother and younger

brother, and older friend and younger friend.

It can be positive in terms of its emphasis on

every persons commitment to doing their

duty in society, thereby contributing to the

establishment of social stability and har-

mony. Nevertheless, the same value can also

be destructive to innovation and creativity.

Cheng (1990) discusses the problem of the

lack of personality among East Asians,

which is attributed to the Confucian notion

of hierarchy, role obligation and codes of

behavior. Gao et al. (1996) observe that in

Chinese culture not everyone is entitled to

speak; a spoken voice is equated with status,

and young people can hardly get a chance to

talk. Therefore, we would say that zun bei you

xu, despite its positive effect, could stifle

creativity.

Naili (Yili) Persistence

(Perseverance)

Naili(yili) persistence (perseverance) appearsto be an obvious virtue. In any society, noth-

ing can be achieved without persistence/per-

severance. Nevertheless, the Chinese notion

of persistence (perseverance) has deeper

implications: it is a great Chinese virtue

obtained at a great price. All those similar

Chinese values contained in the CVS (see

Table 3), i.e. naili(yili) (persistence, persever-

ance), naixin (patience), rongren (tolerance of

others) point essentially to a Chinese word:ren (to bear, to endure, to tolerate; endur-

ance, tolerance, patience; cruel, ruthless).

Very often we can arrive at the genuine

meaning of a cultural value from its indige-

nous vocabulary. This is true of ren. See

Figure 2: the Chinese character for ren is

composed of two other Chinese characters:

ren (the edge of a knife) at the top and xin

(heart) at the bottom. Here, what I intend to

emphasize is a philosophical message that

every Confucian value has its bright and

dark, positive and negative, or creative and

destructive sides, for the same reason that

everything has its Yin and Yang.

A Weak Design

Redundancy

The design of the fifth dimension has a num-

ber of weaknesses. It all started from the list

of 40 Chinese values that the Chinese




15/23

Culture Connection (1987) drafted (see

Table 3). There is rich redundancy among

the 40 Chinese values, many of which either

mean the same thing or are highly inter-

related with each other. For example:

Values 31 and 35 mean essentially the

same thing: face-caring; face is

philosophically based on the Confucian

notion of shame. The Chinese concept

of face is also found to be highly

associated with other values such as 1, 3,

5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 2327, 29,

3234, 3739, 40; your face is

automatically at stake if you do not

respect and practice these values.

Values 3, 24 and 25 are highly

interrelated and refer to the same

Chinese concept: ren (knife + heart,see also Figure 2).

Values 4 and 17 are used almost

interchangeably by the Chinese.

Values 5 and 34 are close to one another

in Chinese. Value 5 is also connected to

values 18 and 29.

Values 7, 8 and 32 refer to the same

Confucian concept: li(rituals, propriety,

ceremony, decorum, protocol, courtesy,

etiquette).

Values 18 and 29 cannot be separated;

in Chinese, wen (steady, steadiness), zhong

(heavy, weight), and shen (careful,

cautious) sound essentially the same.

Values 8 and 26 share the same

philosophical meaning: repay or

reciprocate to the other party what one

has received from them.

Apart from li shang wang lai, the meaning

of which is not accurately translated (see our

earlier discussion), the English version of

value 16 is another case of inaccurate trans-

lation. In the original Chinese, value 16, en

wei bing shi, denotes a charismatic authority

who rules by being both en (kind, benevolent)

and wei (awe-inspiring, dignified). Value 16

should be properly translated, for example,

as applying the carrot and stick judiciously(see also A Modern ChineseEnglish Dictionary,

1994: 222).

What Chinese Values?

Why 40 Chinese values? Why not 30, 50, or

even more? A close look at the list of 40

fundamental and basic values for Chinese

people reveals that a number of core

Chinese values are not included, such as

Guanxi, Yin Yang, and Wu Wei.4

In a recent


Source: Fang (1999: 285).

Figure 2 The Chinese character Ren (perseverance, patience, tolerance)



16/23

study, 31 Chinese values are added to the

original list of 40, making a total of 71 that

are grouped into eight categories. Even this

extensive list is said not to be exhaustive, and

some values are not included (Fan, 2000).

Valueis defined as that which is explicitly

or implicitly desirable to and consciously or

unconsciously held by an individual or group

and which influences the selection from

available modes, means, and ends of action

(Adler, 1991). This definition suggests that

value can be discerned from the attitude and

behavior of individuals and groups. Let us

look at value 11: tuanjie (solidarity with

others). There is a consensus that the Chinese

culture is so family-oriented that trust is highonly within the borders of family and kinship

networks and is low in society at large

(Fukuyama, 1995; Hsu, 1963; Kao, 1993;

Lin, 1939). Teamwork is unknown to the

Chinese; Chinese society is compared to a

tray of loose sands (Lin, 1939: 177). Non-

cooperation is one of the cultural determi-

nants of Chinese values (Redding, 1990: 43).

Chinese peoples inability to cooperate and

their predilection for bickering among them-selves are deep-rooted harmful traits (Bo,

1992). Solidarity seems to be a value that is

lacking in Chinese culture, so how could

tuanjiebe classified as one of the fundamental

and basic values for Chinese people (The

Chinese Culture Connection, 1987: 145)?

The 40 values on which Hofstedes fifth

dimension is empirically based rest too

strongly on Confucianism. As a matter of

fact, Chinese beliefs and values come from a

combination of three schools of philosophical

thought, i.e. Confucianism, Taoism, and

Buddhism (Redding, 1990). Other philo-

sophies than Confucianism have made an

imprint on the shaping of Chinese values,

norms and behavior and should be included

in any serious study of Chinese culture.

Student Samples

Hofstedes first four dimensions are empiri-

cally based on his studies of IBM employees

in 53 countries. The fifth dimension is not

constructed on the same empirical ground;

rather, it is based on the college student sam-

ples collected in 23 countries. The Chinese

Culture Connection (1987: 146) describes its

research strategy as follows:

The most convenient cultural informants wereuniversity students, as collaborators in thisstudy were all faculty members at universities.The procedure was to collect responses from atleast 50 males and 50 females from any classlevel, but from as wide a range of under-graduate majors as possible. [emphasis added]

College students may be the most con-

venient cultural informants and may even

be one of the most frequently sought-aftersamples in our cross cultural research data

bank. But the question remains: are college

students the most reliable representatives of

the average cultural values held by people in

their culture at large? The answer is, unfor-

tunately, no. Given their behavioral traits, it

is not very difficult to understand why the

student respondents ranked the following

values as less important: chastity in women,

patriotism, sense of righteousness, reciproca-tion, personal steadiness, protecting your

face, reciprocation of greetings, favors and

gifts, respect for tradition, adaptability, pru-

dence, (see the negative values in Table 4).

These values look, quite simply, too con-

servative to the student population. Hofstede

clearly knows this weakness when he explains

why face turns out to be insignificant in East

Asia according to his study (1991: 169): Even

if there is, in fact, a lot of face-saving going on

in East Asia, the scores show that at the con-

scious level, the student respondents wanted

to de-emphasize it.

What is the meaning of identifying

dimensions of national culture? What is our

interest: to measure the average pattern of

beliefs and values in a culture (Hofstede,

1983b: 78) or to measure the student respon-

dents de-emphasis of these beliefs and

values at the conscious level (Hofstede,

1991: 169)? Given the self-explanatory con-




17/23

cept of national culture dimensions, innocent

readers would be lured to believe there is not

much face-saving in East Asia. But the reality

is just the opposite. Consider advertising in

China and East Asia: who could afford to

launch a face de-emphasizing ad in Chinese

and East Asian markets just because the

student respondents from these cultures

wanted to play down face? In short, a sample

with mixed occupational, age and gender

profiles is required in order to obtain a more

reliable picture of national values in a society.

Distorted Methodology

The strength of Hofstedes earlier study

(1980) is that it ingeniously employs some-what comparable samples (though in no way

almost perfectly matched as claimed) from

across a large number of countries, using the

same set of instruments for data generation,

and thus arrives at results that could provide

a good anchor for future research. Adding a

fifth dimension to the original four, without

following the earlier methodology, however,

has resulted in an unwarranted inferential

jump and a model that is not based on logic.The right thing to do would have been to add

the new instruments (that purport to measure

Confucian dynamism) to the earlier ones and

employ the same techniques of factor analy-

sis used earlier to validate the results. Given

the distorted research methodology, the fifth

dimension cannot lay claim to being a result

of robust research.5

Because of the defects built into Hof-

stedes fifth dimension as discussed, the viabil-

ity of this dimension is doubted. We also

doubt the viability of Hofstedes hypothesis of

the Confucian connection that explains the

Chinese/East Asian economic performance

by referring to Confucian dynamism (long-

term orientation) (Bond and Hofstede, 1989;

Hofstede, 1991; Hofstede and Bond, 1988).

Confucianism may not be the right and/or only

philosophy to refer to when explaining the

Chinese/East Asian economic performance;

some larger frameworks seem to be at work.

Confucius himself says: The superior man

understands righteousness; the inferior man

understands profit (Analects, in Chan, 1963:

28). Therefore, it can be unfair to hypothesize

the cash value of Confucian values (Bond

and Hofstede, 1989). Tu (1984: 88) maintains

that moral development rather than econom-

ic interest is intrinsic to Confucian traditions,

and that there is no causal relationship

between the Confucian ethic and the East

Asian entrepreneurial spirit. Yeh and

Lawrence (1995) also draw our attention to

the influence of non-cultural

factors such as political environment and

market-oriented policies. The Asian eco-

nomic crisis rolling through most regions ofEast Asia since 1997 provides striking evi-

dence against Hofstedes Confucian connec-

tion thesis.

Conclusions and Future

Research

In this article, we have discussed a number of

drawbacks in Hofstedes fifth national culture

dimension. First, Confucian dynamism (long-term orientation) divides interrelated values

into two opposing poles. Values labeled as

short-term oriented or negative may not

necessarily be so, and values labeled as long-

term oriented or positive may not neces-

sarily be so either. We call this a philosophi-

cal flaw because the Chinese Yin Yang

principle is violated by the concept. Second,

there is much redundancy among the 40

Chinese values in the Chinese Value Survey

(CVS), the ultimate base of Hofstedes fifth

dimension. A number of values either mean

essentially the same thing or are highly

interrelated. This leads to the fact that the

two opposite ends of Confucian dynamism

(long-term orientation) are actually not

opposed to each other. Third, there exists a

problem of including non-values and exclud-

ing values in the list of Chinese values pro-

posed by the Chinese Culture Connection

(1987). These values focus too much on




18/23

Confucianism; the Taoist and Buddhist

values are not considered in the design of the

constructs leading to Hofstedes fifth dimen-

sion. Fourth, inaccurate English translation

has been found in some values in the CVS,

which may have, in part, resulted in mis-

interpretations in the cross cultural surveys

and eventual meaningless findings. Fifth,

Hofstedes fifth dimension is based on the

opinions of a student population whose cul-

tural values can barely represent the average

cultural values held by the people in their

cultures at large. Finally, compared with the

first four dimensions, the fifth does not result

from the same techniques of factor analysis

as used earlier to validate the results; it doesnot have the same sampling background (stu-

dents vs. IBM employees). Given the flaws

inherent in its conceptualization, Hofstedes

fifth dimensions viability is questioned, and

its relevance for our cross cultural manage-

ment research and practice has been found

and will remain very limited.

Yin Yang Revisited

A question naturally comes to mind: whatwould be a possible Oriental contribution if

the Confucian dynamism (long-term orienta-

tion) does not work? Herriot, a French

writer and politician, defines culture as what

remains when one has forgotten everything

(Faure, 1999: 188). If I were asked what

would remain on the Chinesemind when all

else is forgotten, my answer would be Yin

Yang. Yin Yang represents a paradoxical,

integrated, holistic, harmonious, and chang-

ing worldview and lifestyle. Chen (2001)

notes that zhongguo, the mandarin word for

China which literally translates as Middle

Kingdom and is commonly interpreted as

suggesting that the Chinese view themselves

as a superior people at the center of the uni-

verse, refers, as a matter of fact, to the philo-

sophical principle of being in the middle

of maintaining a balanced and integrated

life.

In this article, the spirit of Yin Yang has

sparked us to touch the base of one of

Hofstedes national culture dimensions. The

Yin Yang principle has far-reaching implica-

tions for our cross cultural theory building

in general. For decades the field of cross cul-

tural research has been predominated by a

functionalist paradigm of national culture,

which analyzes culture in terms ofbipolarized

cultural dimensions. Geert Hofstedes (1980)

Cultures Consequences represents the peak of

such scholarship. National cultures are classi-

fied essentially as clustering around two poles

of these dimensions. Cultures are individual-

istic or collectivistic, low-context or high-

context, long-term oriented or short-term

oriented, P-time (polychronic) or M-time(monochronic), and so on. Conventional

cross cultural wisdom abounds with such

either/or lists. The strength of this para-

digm lies in its clarity and parsimony in iso-

lating culture-general variables/dimensions

and contrasting one culture against another

in terms of these variables/dimensions,

thereby facilitating cross cultural compari-

sons. However, as many scholars (see, e.g.

Fang, 2002; Lowe, 2001; McSweeney,2002a, b; Tayeb, 2001; Williamson, 2002)

have pointed out, the paradigm does not

cope well with the intricacy, diversity, rich-

ness and dynamism of culture; the field calls

for fresh air and new visions.

The Yin Yang philosophy suggests that

human beings, organizations, and cultures,

like all other universal phenomena, intrinsic-

ally crave variation and harmony for their

sheer existence and healthy development.

We are both/and instead of either/or. We

are both Yin and Yang, feminine and mascu-

line, long-term and short-term, individualis-

tic and collectivistic, . . . depending on situa-

tions, context and time. Saying this, I do not

mean to imply that the concept of culture

is useless. Culture is too important, subtle,

sensual, delicate, colorful and fluid to be left

only to the functionalist paradigm. We need

larger both/and frameworks. We need, for

example, to develop models to explain why,




19/23

to what extent, and in what circumstances a

group of people behave as bothindividualists

and collectivists; why subcultures and re-

gional cultures within and across a national

culture can differ diametrically from the

national culture; why and how contingencies,

i.e. particularistic and unexpected events,

can ignite a cultural change process and con-

tribute to eventual and continuous trans-

formation of a culture into its opposite. The

Yin Yang philosophy empowers us with an

important perspective to develop a dynamic

and holistic approach to cross cultural

research. In line with the philosophical spirit

of Yin Yang, recent interest in paradox,

pluralism, postmodernism, and change inorganization and management studies (e.g.

Clegg, 2002; Clegg et al., 2002; Glynn et al.,

2000; Kilduff and Dougherty, 2000; Kilduff

and Mehra, 1997; Leana and Barry, 2000;

Lewis, 2000; Poole and Van de Ven, 1989;

Quinn and Cameron, 1988) offers important

insights from which we cross cultural man-

agement researchers can learn and borrow.

Geert Hofstede is a great scholar of our

times; he has been inspiring us to catch upand move on.6 Culture is full of life, energy,

complexity, diversity and paradox. Our cross

cultural theories should capture such dyna-

mism.

Notes

The first draft of this article was presented atThe Academy of Management Annual Meeting,San Diego, 912 August 1998. I would like to

thank the two IJCCM anonymous reviewers andthe IJCCM Editor Terence Jackson for pushingme to clarify and sharpen my arguments. Thanksalso go to many researchers with whom I havehad inspiring discussions on the subject that thearticle tackles.

1 In Hofstedes initial study (1980), 40countries were included; in his later study(1983a), 13 more countries were added. Forthe sake of simplicity, the term countries inthis article refers to countries and regions.

2 Hofstede (1993: 90) writes: It [Confucian

dynamism] was composed, both on the

positive and on the negative side, from itemsthat had not been included in the IBMstudies but were present in the ChineseValue Survey because they were rooted inthe teachings of Confucius. I labeled thisdimension: Long-termversus Short-termOrientation.

3 Here fit is meant in a functionalistparadigm.

4 Guanxi (relationship, personal contacts,connections), Yin Yang, and Wu Wei(doing nothing, to act without acting) asindigenous Chinese values are discussedextensively in the Chinese culture andmanagement literature (e.g. Ambler, 1994;Chan, 1963; Chen, 2001, 2002; Cooper,1990; Davies et al., 1995; Fan, 2002; Fang,1999; Lin, 1996; Luo, 2000; Pye, 1982;

Redding, 1990; Xin and Pearce, 1996; Yang,1994; Yeung and Tung, 1996). Wu Wei isalso believed to be at the center of the Taoistparadigm (Redding, 1990: 50).

5 Based on personal communication with J.P.Singh.

6 Geert Hofstede (2001: 466) holds that hiswork does not present a finished theory andencourages us to continue our exploration toserve the understanding of cultural differ-ences and the improvement of interculturalcommunication and cooperation, which the

world will increasingly and forever need.

References

A Modern ChineseEnglish Dictionary (1994) Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and ResearchPress.

Adler, N.J. (1991) International Dimensions ofOrganizational Behavior, 2nd edn. Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing Company.

Ambler, T. (1994) Marketings Third Paradigm:Guanxi,Business Strategy Review5(4): 6980.

Bo, Y. (1992) The Ugly Chinaman and the Crisis ofChinese Culture. St Leonards, Australia: Allen &Unwin.

Bond, M.H. and Hofstede, G. (1989) The CashValue of Confucian Values, Human Systems

Management8: 195200.Carroll, S. and Gannon, M.J. (1997) Ethical

Dimensions of International Management.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chan, A.M. (1998) Construction of aChineseness Value Scale and a ChinesenessEthnicity Scale, paper presented at the

Association for Consumer Research Asia-




20/23

Pacific Conference (June), Hong Kong.Chan, W.-T. (1963)A Source Book in Chinese

Philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.

Chen, M.J. (2001) Inside Chinese Business: A Guidefor Managers Worldwide. Boston: HarvardBusiness School Press.

Chen, M.J. (2002) Transcending Paradox: TheMiddle Way Perspective,Asia Pacific Journalof Management19: 17999.

Cheng, S.K.K. (1990) Understanding theCulture and Behavior of East Asians: AConfucian Perspective,Australian and NewZealand Journal of Psychiatry 24(4): 51015.

The Chinese Culture Connection (1987)Chinese Values and the Search for Culture-free Dimensions of Culture,Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 18(2): 14364.

Chu, C.N. (1992) Thick Face Black Heart: The Pathto Thriving, Winning & Succeeding. Beaverton:

AMC Publishing.Clegg, S.R. (ed.) (2002)Management and

Organization Paradoxes. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins Publishing.

Clegg, S.R., da Cunha, J.V. and e Cunha, M.P.(2002) Management Paradoxes: A RelationalView, Human Relations55(5): 483503.

Cooper, J.C. (1990) Taoism: The Way of the Mystic,revised edn. Wellingborough: The AquarianPress.

Davies, H., Leung, K.P., Luk, T.K. and Wong,Y.H. (1995) The Benefits of Guanxi: TheValue of Relationships in Developing theChinese Market, Industrial Marketing

Management24: 20714.Earley, P.C. (1997) Face, Harmony, and Social

Structure: An Analysis of Organizational Behavioracross Cultures. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Fan, Y. (2000) A Classification of ChineseCulture, Cross Cultural Management7(2): 310.

Fan, Y. (2002) Questioning Guanxi: Definition,Classification and Implications, International

Business Review11(5): 54361.Fang, T. (1999) Chinese Business Negotiating Style.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Fang, T. (2001) Culture as a Driving Force for

Interfirm Adaptation: A Chinese Case,Industrial Marketing Management30(1): 5163.

Fang, T. (2002) The Moon and the Sun ofCulture: A Yin Yang Approach to Cross-cultural Management, paper presented as akeynote speech at the 2nd Doing Business

Across Borders (DBAB) Conference,Newcastle Business School, Australia, 2728

November,

http://www.newcastle.edu.au/journal/dbab/keynote.html, accessed April 2003.

Faure, G.O. (1999) The Cultural Dimension ofNegotiation: The Chinese Case, Group

Decision and Negotiation 8: 187215.Franke, R.H., Hofstede, G. and Bond, M.H.

(1991) Cultural Roots of EconomicPerformance: A Research Note, Strategic

Management Journal12(Special Issue, Summer):16573.

Fukuyama, F. (1995) Trust: The Social Virtues andthe Creation of Prosperity. London: HamishHamilton.

Gao, G. (1996) Self and Other: A ChinesePerspective on Interpersonal Relationships,In W.B. Gudykunst, S. Ting-Toomey and T.Nishida (eds) Communication in PersonalRelationships across Cultures, pp. 81101.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Gao, G., Ting-Toomey, S. and Gudykunst, W.B.

(1996) Chinese Communication Processes,in M.H. Bond (ed.) The Handbook of ChinesePsychology, pp. 28093. Hong Kong: OxfordUniversity Press.

Glynn, M.A., Barr, P.S. and Dacin, M.T. (2000)Pluralism and the Problem of Variety,

Academy of Management Review25(4): 72634.Goffman, E. (1955) On Face-work: An Analysis

of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction,Psychiatry 18(3): 21331.

Gu, Y.G. (1990) Politeness Phenomena inModern Chinese,Journal of Pragmatics14(2):23757.

Gudykunst, W.B., Ting-Toomey, S. and Nishida,T. (eds) (1996) Communication in PersonalRelationships across Cultures. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Hall, E.T. (1976)Beyond Culture. New York:Doubleday.

Hofheinz, R. Jr and Calder, K.E. (1982) TheEastAsia Edge. New York: Basic Books.

Hofstede, G. (1980) Cultures Consequences:International Differences in Work-related Values.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Hofstede, G. (1983a) Dimensions of National

Cultures in Fifty Countries and ThreeRegions, in J.B. Deregowski, S. Dziurawiecand R.C. Annis (eds) Expiscations in Cross-cultural Psychology, pp. 33555. Lisse: Swetsand Zeitlinger.

Hofstede, G. (1983b) The Cultural Relativity ofOrganizational Practices and Theories,

Journal of International Business Studies14(2):7589.

Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and Organizations:

Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill.




21/23

Hofstede, G. (1993) Cultural Constraints inManagement Theories,Academy of ManagementExecutive7(1): 8194.

Hofstede, G. (2001) Cultures Consequences:Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, andOrganizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (2002) Dimensions Do Not Exist: AReply to Brendan McSweeney, HumanRelations55(11): 135561.

Hofstede, G. and Bond, M.H. (1984) HofstedesCulture Dimensions: An IndependentValidation Using Rokeachs Value Survey,

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 15(4):41733.

Hofstede, G. and Bond, M.H. (1988) TheConfucius Connection: From Cultural Rootsto Economic Growth, Organizational Dynamics

16(4): 521.Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B. and Ohavy, D. (1990)

Measuring Organizational Cultures: AQualitative and Quantitative Study acrossTwenty Cases,Administrative Science Quarterly35 (June): 286316.

Hsu, F.L.-K. (1963) Clan, Caste, and Club.Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Hu, H.C. (1944) The Chinese Concepts ofFace,American Anthropologist46(1): 4564.

Huang, Q.Y., Leonard, J. and Chen, T. (1997)Business Decision Making in China. New York:

International Business Press.Jackson, T. and Aycan, Z. (2001) InternationalJournal of Cross Cultural Management Towards the Future, International Journal ofCross Cultural Management1(1): 59.

Kal, S. (1996) How National Culture,Organizational Culture and PersonalityImpact BuyerSeller Interactions., in P.Ghauri and J.-C. Usunier (eds) International

Business Negotiations, pp. 2137. Oxford:Pergamon.

Kao, J. (1993) The Worldwide Web of ChineseBusiness, Harvard Business Review

93(MarchApril): 2436.Kilduff, M. and Dougherty, D. (2000) Change

and Development in a Pluralistic World: TheView from the Classics,Academy of ManagementReview25(4): 77782.

Kilduff, M. and Mehra, A. (1997)Postmodernism and OrganizationalResearch,Academy of Management Review22(2):45381.

Kluckholn, F.R. and Strodtbeck, F.L. (1961)Variations in Value Orientations. Evanston, IL:Row, Peterson and Co.

Leana, C.R. and Barry, B. (2000) Stability and

Change as Simultaneous Experiences inOrganizational Life,Academy of ManagementReview25(4): 75359.

Lewis, M.W. (2000) Exploring Paradox: Towarda More Comprehensive Guide,Academy of

Management Review25(4): 76076.Lin, Y.T. (1939)My Country and My People.

London: William Heinemann.Lin, Y.T. (1996) The Importance of Living(First

published in 1937). New York: WilliamMorrow and Company.

Lowe, S. (2001) In the Kingdom of the Blind,the One-eyed Man is King, International

Journal of Cross Cultural Management1(3):31332.

Luo, Y. (2000) Guanxi and Business. Singapore:World Scientific.

McSweeney, B. (2002a) Hofstedes Model of

National Cultural Differences and theirConsequences: A Triumph of Faith AFailure of Analysis, Human Relations55(1):89118.

McSweeney, B. (2002b) The Essentials ofScholarship: A Reply to Geert Hofstede,Human Relations55(11): 136372.

Newman, K.L. and Nollen, S.D. (1996) Culturaland Congruence: The Fit betweenManagement Practices and National Culture,

Journal of International Business Studies27(4):75379.

Ouyang, W.M. (1995) Confucian Culture and ChineseEconomy. China: Northwestern Finance andAccounting University Press (in Chinese).

Poole, M.S. and Van de Ven, A.H. (1989) UsingParadox to Build Management andOrganization Theories,Academy of ManagementReview14(4): 56278.

Punnett, B.J. (1999) Culture, Cross-national, inR.L. Tung (ed.) The International Encyclopedia of

Business Management (IEBM) Handbook ofInternational Business, pp. 5167. London:International Thomson Business Press.

Pye, L.W. (1982) Chinese Commercial Negotiating

Style. Cambridge: Oelgeschlager, Gunn &Hain.

Quinn, R.E. and Cameron, K.S. (eds) (1988)Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory ofChange in Organization and Management.Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing.

Ralston, D.A, Gustafson, D.J., Elsass, P.M.,Cheung, F.M. and Terpstra, R.H. (1992)Eastern Values: A Comparison of Managersin the United States, Hong Kong, and thePeoples Republic of China,Journal of AppliedPsychology 77(5): 66471.

Ralston, D.A., Gustafson, D.J., Cheung, F.M.




22/23

and Terpstra, R.H. (1993) Differences inManagerial Values: A Study of United States,Hong Kong and PRC Managers,Journal ofInternational Business Studies24: 24975.

Read, R. (1993) Politics and Policies of NationalEconomic Growth, unpublished doctoraldissertation, Stanford University.

Redding, S.G. (1990) The Spirit of ChineseCapitalism. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Redding, S.G. and Ng, M. (1982) The Role ofFace in the Organizational Perceptions ofChinese Managers, Organization Studies3(3):20119.

Redpath, L. and Nielsen, M.O. (1997) AComparison of Native Culture, Non-nativeCulture and New Management Ideology,Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences14(3):32739.

Roberts, K. and Boyacigiller, N. (1984) Cross-national Organizational Research: The Graspof the Blind Man, in B.M. Staw and L.L.Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational

Behavior, vol. 6, pp. 42375. Stamford, CT:JAI Press.

Rollinson, D., Broadfield, A. and Edwards, D.J.(1998) Organisational Behaviour and Analysis: AnIntegrated Approach. Harlow: Addison-WesleyLongman.

Schtte, H. and Ciarlante, D. (1998) ConsumerBehavior in Asia. New York: New York

University Press.Schwartz, S.H. (1992) Universals in the Contentand Structure of Values: Theory andEmpirical Tests in 20 Countries, in M.Zanna (ed.)Advances in Experimental SocialPsychology, vol. 25, pp. 165. New York:

Academic Press.Smith, P.B. (1996) National Cultures and the

Values of Organizational Employees: Timefor Another Look, in P. Joynt and M.Warner (eds)Managing across Cultures: Issues andPerspectives. London: International ThomsonBusiness Press.

Smith, P.B. (2002) Cultures Consequences:Something Old and Something New, HumanRelations55(1): 11935.

Sndergaard, M. (1994) Research Note:Hofstedes Consequences: A Study ofReviews, Citations and Replications,Organization Studies15(3): 44756.

Sndergaard, M. (2001) Book Review. GeertHofstede, Cultures Consequences: ComparingValues, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizationsacross Nations, International Journal of CrossCultural Management1(2): 2436.

Tayeb, M.H. (1988) Organizations and National

Culture: A Comparative Analysis. London: Sage.Tayeb, M.H. (1994) Organizations and National

Culture: Methodology Considered,Organization Studies15: 42946.

Tayeb, M.H. (2000) Hofstede, in M. Warner(ed.) International Encyclopaedia of Business and

Management, 2nd edn, pp. 25749. London:International Thomson Business Press.

Tayeb, M.H. (2001) Conducting Researchacross Cultures: Overcoming Drawbacks andObstacles, International Journal of Cross Cultural

Management1(1): 91108.The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical

Principles(1975) (First published in 1933).Glasgow: Oxford University Press.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1988) Intercultural ConflictStyles: A Face-negotiation Theory, in Y.Y.Kim and W.B. Gudykunst (eds), Theories in

Intercultural Communication, pp. 21335.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Triandis, H.C. (1982) Book Review. HofstedesCultures Consequences: International Differences inWork-related Values, Human Organi

a critique of hofstede fifth national culture dimension ijccm 2003

Documents